Science Applications International Corporation

B-411212 Jun 16, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights IndraSoft, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, protests awards of contracts to ActionNet, Inc., of Vienna, Virginia, AT&T Government Solutions, Inc., of Vienna, Virginia, Camber Corporation, of Huntsville, Alabama, CRGT, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, Intelligent Decisions, Inc., of Ashburn, Virginia, and SRA International, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. USCA14R0014, which was issued by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) for information technology (IT) support services. IndraSoft challenges the evaluation of its proposal. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  IndraSoft Inc. File:  B-411212 Date:  June 16, 2015 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., and Laura Shelkey Yeo, Esq., Protorae Law PLLC, for the protester. David S. Cohen, Esq., Gabriel E. Kennon, Esq., Amy J. Spencer, Esq., John J. O’Brien, Esq., and Daniel Strouse, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP, for Intelligent Decisions, Inc.; David S. Black, Esq., Elizabeth N. Jochum, Esq., and Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for SRA International, the intervenors. Brenda Oswalt, Esq., and Earl Friedman, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, for the agency. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s assignment of an adjectival rating under an evaluation factor is denied, where the record reflects that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable, and where, in any event, the protester could not have suffered prejudice because the agency’s award decision reasonably considered the relative strengths of each offeror’s proposal, rather than relying on the adjectival ratings assigned. DECISION IndraSoft, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, protests awards of contracts to ActionNet, Inc., of Vienna, Virginia, AT&T Government Solutions, Inc., of Vienna, Virginia, Camber Corporation, of Huntsville, Alabama, CRGT, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, Intelligent Decisions, Inc., of Ashburn, Virginia, and SRA International, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. USCA14R0014, which was issued by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) for information technology (IT) support services.  IndraSoft challenges the evaluation of its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND As part of its mission, AOUSC provides IT support services to the judicial branch through a multiple-award contract known as the Judiciary Multiple Award Services (JMAS) contract.  RFP at 5.  These services include software development, implementation, and maintenance; testing/quality assurance, systems security, project management, planning and acquisition support; and, IT education and training.  Id.  The RFP, which was issued on April 1, 2014, sought proposals for the fourth iteration of this multiple-award contract (JMAS IV), which will provide a broad range of information technology support services, spanning the entire system’s development life-cycle, including services related to new and emerging technologies, with a primary focus on IT services and telecommunications. Id. at 6. The RFP contemplated the award of up to six indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts, which will have a base performance period of 1 year, four 1-year options, and an additional 6-month option.  The contracts will provide for competition for task orders that will be fixed-price, labor-hour, time-and-material, or a hybrid of these types.  Id. at 6, 54.  Award was to be made on a best-value basis considering four technical evaluation factors and price.  The first factor, technical capability and contract compliance certification, was to be evaluated on a go/no go basis; the other factors, listed in descending order of importance, were:  (1) past performance, (2) management plan and approach, and (3) key personnel.  Id. at 54‑55.  Together the non-price factors were significantly more important than price.  Id. at 54. As relevant here, the RFP stated that evaluation under the management plan and approach factor would be based on a proposal’s completeness, feasibility, and demonstration of the offeror’s understanding of the requirements.  Id. at 56.  For purposes of the evaluation, the RFP required each offeror to address 15 areas of information concerning their management plan and approach in their proposal.  See id.